Allowed¶26

Jasmine Ajayan v. Swastik Realtors and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2026IA/8042/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of 123-day delay; recall/setting aside of order dated 4.7.2025 dismissing appeal for non-prosecution; restoration of Appeal No.290 of 2013; deemed good service on refusal by Respondent No.6; Bombay HC Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Interim Application No.8042 of 2025; bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, Sandesh D. Patil; applicant/appellant Dr. Jasmine Ajayan; respondents M/s. Swastik Realtors and others; advocates: Ishan Gambhir, Aletea Fernandes (India Law LLP), M.K. Tanna, Maulik Vora (Pramodkumar & Co.).

What did the court decide?

Delay of 123 days in filing the Interim Application condoned; order dated 4.7.2025 dismissing Appeal No.290 of 2013 for non-prosecution recalled and set aside; Appeal restored to file with liberty to the parties to circulate it. ¶26

Jasmine Ajayan vs Swastik Realtors and 5 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

: 1 : 19-IA-8042-25-OS.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8042 OF 2025 IN

¶4

APPEAL NO.290 OF 2013

¶5

Dr. Jasmine Ajayan …..Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Dr. Jasmine Ajayan ...Appellant Versus M/s. Swastik Realtors and others .….Respondents

¶6

Mr. Ishan Gambhir, Advocate a/w. Aletea Fernandes i/b. M/s. India Law LLP for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. M.K. Tanna, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 26^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1. By this Interim Application the Applicant is seeking

¶11

recalling and setting aside the order dated 4.7.2025 passed in

¶12

Appeal No.290/2013 whereby the Appeal of the Applicant was

¶13

dismissed for non-prosecution. There is delay of 123 days in

¶14

filing the present Interim Application for recalling the said order.

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

Deshmane(PS)

¶17

: 2 : 19-IA-8042-25-OS.odt

¶18

2. This Court had issued notices to the Respondents.

¶19

Today the office has filed a report stating that the Respondent

¶20

Nos.1 to 5 are served. As far as the Respondent No.6 is concerned, the report shows that the packet was returned to the sender as the addressee has “refused” to accept the service. This, according to us, is a good service. Hence, all the Respondents are served.

¶21

3. We have considered the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant as well as the Respondent Nos.1 & 4. Learned counsel appearing for the other Respondents is not present. On 2.2.2026, Mr. Maulik Vora i/b. Pramodkumar & Co. learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 had waived service on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5. Today, he is not present.

¶22

4. Having heard learned counsel for the Applicant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4, and after considering the averments made in the Interim Application more particularly in paragraph No.14, we are satisfied that a case is made out for condonation of delay of

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

: 3 : 19-IA-8042-25-OS.odt

¶25

123 days caused in filing the present Interim Application. The present Interim Application is for restoration as well. The matter is pending before this Court since 2013. The Applicant was appearing initially, however, on last two occasions he did not appear and, therefore, the Appeal was dismissed. Since we are satisfied that the explanation tendered by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the delay of 123 days caused in filing the present Interim Application is condoned, the order dated 4.7.2025 dismissing the Appeal for want of prosecution, is recalled and set aside. The Appeal is accordingly restored to the file. The parties are at liberty to get the Appeal circulated.

¶26

5. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)

¶28

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAODESHMANE Deshmane (PS) DESHMANE Date: 2026.02.27 16:00:44 +0530

¶30

3 of 3

Jasmine Ajayan v. Swastik Realtors and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmine Ajayan v. Swastik Realtors and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Elisheva Eliran Nechama Benishai and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhara Sanket Mehta vs State of Maharashtra

Shamik Haresh Hirani vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra vs Anand Vasudeo Chavan and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra vs Mehandi Khaliq Hasan and Anr.

Raju Raghu Sadavarte vs State of Maharashtra